INTRODUCTION Description of Study

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Description of Study

In the spring of 2007 The Town of Cary conducted a survey of two neighborhoods comprising the downtown area. The two neighborhoods were two census block groups located on the southwest and southeast sides of downtown Cary and are within the purview of the Town’s community development plan. The purpose of the study was to capture various aspects of each neighborhood that would inform the Town of the health of the area as well as how to better work with the residents within each neighborhood. More specifically, the survey was undertaken in order to inform the Town how to improve and market existing programs and develop new ones; to understand the baseline of various neighborhood characteristics for a downtown area plan; as a vehicle for residents to provide input as to the needs of their neighborhoods; to understand formal and informal communication networks within the neighborhoods as well as the organization of the neighborhoods. The survey measured neighborhood definition, sense of community, neighbor interaction, citizen participation, needs, assets, safety, and demographic variables. Role of the Town of Cary It is clear that this study fits into the current focus of the Town of Cary based on mayoral statements as well as Town developed plans. For example, in the 2007 State of the Town address, Mayor Ernie McAlister stated, “our sense of community is strong” Town of Cary, 2007 a . The Town Council Quality of Life Work Sessions also repeatedly make mention of building a sense of community within the town in order to increase the quality of life of its residents Town of Cary, 2006 a . Town plans such as the pedestrian plan Town of Cary, 2007 b and land use plan Town of Cary, 2003 refer to building a sense of community as a goal or objective. So, community characteristics, especially sense of community, are driving forces in the town management. For this reason sense of community, along with other neighborhood characteristics were included in this study. It provides a preliminary examination of the level of certain characteristics of the existing environment within the downtown neighborhoods that can be used as baseline data, monitoring of goals and objectives of existing plans and planning future endeavors. Other evidence that this study is in the purview of local governance comes from past research that has proposed that the role of municipalities is changing. City and Town managers as of late have been called on to participate in community building efforts by helping residents create a community identity, seeing to the needs and values of the community, encouraging residents to participate in the decision-making process, and creating partnerships with other community entities Nalbandian, 1999; Nalbandian Oliver, 1999. This study is the first step in understanding the downtown area in order to prepare for community building efforts. Importance of Neighborhoods Communities are an important part of American life not only for the impact that they have on governmental institutions but also for the impact that they have on the lives of the residents. Jasek-Rysdahl 2001 states, “Strong communities are constructive, necessary and that they need to be strengthened. Communities provide support, order, and a framework that people need to help make sense of their lives.” p. 318-319. In terms of the individual, neighborhoods can link people together creating channels for information flow and assistance. Neighborhoods can foster weak ties between neighbors, which have been found to be beneficial. Weak ties are people who Page 6 are considered more of acquaintances than friends. When looking at the possibilities of diffusion of information concerning the neighborhood as well as community mobilization within the neighborhood, linkages between neighbors become increasingly important. When people are linked by weak ties and interact with one another on occasion, information from governance and from other residents can cover a wider area Granovetter, 1973. From an ecological standpoint, the neighborhood influences individuals since it is a system in which the individuals are embedded. So, in order to understand the well being of individuals, behaviors or social problems, one must understand the systems in which individuals are embedded Bronfenbrenner as cited in Dalton, Elias, Wandersman, 2001; Maton, 2000. Another reason for assessment of neighborhood characteristics stems from the fact that every neighborhood within a city is different. There are no two exactly alike in terms of physical or social characteristics. In order to fully understand a neighborhood’s problems and design successful interventions, one must first understand the characteristics of the neighborhood. Denhardt Glaser, 1999 Variables As mentioned above the present study examined neighborhood definition, sense of community, neighbor interaction, citizen participation, needs, assets, safety, and demographic variables. Neighborhood Definition A neighborhood is defined as “a spatial construction denoting a geographical unit in which residents share proximity and the circumstance that come with it” Chaskin, 1997, p.522-523. Defining a neighborhood seems like a straightforward task. However, each individual person within a neighborhood may have a different conception of where the boundaries of that neighborhood lie. For the purposes of this survey the two neighborhoods were defined as census block groups. Even though census boundaries do allow for the comparison of a sample to the population they are arbitrary geographic markers. Each resident within a census block group may have a different notion of what constitutes hisher neighborhood. Research has found enormous variation when it comes to participants defining their neighborhood in terms of physical boundaries. On average, residents of Nashville neighborhoods reported that their neighborhood encompasses 15 blocks. However responses for physical boundaries ranged from 1 block to over 200 blocks Lee Campbell, 1997. For that reason, the present study included a question to determine how residents define their neighborhood. This item can provide the Town with a frame of reference as to how to target programs. For example, if the majority of residents feel that their neighborhood constitutes just their block, then program efforts should be targeted at the block level. Sense of Community Sense of community has been defined in many different ways. For the purposes of this study, it included the following aspects based on McMillan and Chavis’ 1986 theory of sense of community: “feelings of membership and belongingness, trust and mutual influence, and shared emotional ties with others in the neighborhood” Martinez, Black, Starr, 2002, p.28. Sense of community is an extremely important characteristic for communities. It has been linked to certain aspects of psychological health such as subjective well-being, happiness, coping, worrying Prezza, Amici, Roberti, Tedeschi, 2001, loneliness, and life satisfaction Davidson Cotter, 1991. It has also been found to influence residents’ behaviors to improve their Page 7 neighborhoods. How we perceive a setting affects how we behave within that setting. If the Town needs to know if people are willing to participate in any kind of revitalization or citizen participation within their neighborhoods, they need to know how people perceive their neighborhoods Manzo Perkins, 2006. In terms of behaviors, sense of community has been linked to discussing neighborhood problems with neighbors, Bolland McCallum, 2002, neighboring and involvement in neighborhood groups Manzo Perkins, 2006. The measurement of sense of community is also important since sense of community within a neighborhood is not a given. Just because people live in close proximity to one another does not mean that they feel a sense of community toward the neighborhood or each other Manzo Perkins, 2006. Neighboring Sense of Community and Neighboring are often considered the same construct. However, Farrell, Aubry, Coulombe 2004 indicate that sense of community is a “psychological variable” p.10 since it refers to beliefs and attitudes about one’s community. Neighboring then is considered a “behavioral variable” p.10 since it refers to the actions among neighbors. Unger and Wandersman 1985 define neighboring as “the social interaction, the symbolic interaction, and the attachment of individuals with people living around them and the place in which they live” p.141. As with sense of community, neighboring has implications for psychological health. It has been found to have an indirect effect on personal well-being. It has been found to increase sense of community, which in turn increases personal well-being Farell et al, 2004. Neighboring also has an effect on community related behaviors. It has been found to influence residents discussing neighborhood problems, working with neighbors to solve those problems, and contacting elected officials Bolland McCallum, 2002. Neighboring also has important implications for American families. As family structure continues to change in America there may be more of a need for dependence upon neighbors. There has been an increase in single parent homes, dual earner households, individuals choosing to live alone, and extended families no longer living close to one another McCamant Durrett, 1988; Bronfenbrenner, 1984. Neighbors could take the place of the traditional nuclear family as well as the role of the extended family in terms of support. Neighbors provide support for one another, reduce fear of crime, and provide friendships. Neighbor networks are also able to reduce crime through collective social control Unger Wandersman, 1985. However, it should be noted that even though neighbors may be able to provide social support and possibly take the place of extended families, time demands may limit the potential for interaction with neighbors. Citizen Participation Citizen participation is basically defined as involvement in decision-making. Murphy and Cunningham 2003 define citizen participation as “a process whereby the people of a community, regardless of income or position, join meaningfully in making social, political, and economic decisions related to the general affairs of the community” p.111. Resident participation in civic organizations is important for the community work of municipalities. It has been proposed that government affects individuals through community organizations. More specifically, governments work through civic organizations to reach individuals Sinclair, 2002. For that reason, it was important for the Town to understand whether individuals are involved in the community through civic organizations and with which groups they are involved. Page 8 Needs and Assets Professionals guard against conducting needs assessments since they can have the effect of communities being seen as lacking something or deficient in some way. In some communities this causes a feeling of hopelessness. Another approach is to assess competencies of residents and neighborhoods instead of deficiencies. Every community has assets, whether they are from individuals, associations, or institutions. Therefore, it is the responsibility of community development endeavors to highlight those assets when defining a neighborhood Kretzmann McKnight, 1993. Although asset assessments are beneficial to communities, it is still important to understand the needs in order to know what programsservices are needed within a neighborhood. It is also possible that what external entities see as needs do not match what residents feel are the needs of the neighborhood Witkin Altschuld, 1995. Needs are also important to assess since past research has found that perceived needs within a neighborhood affect place attachment with both the home and the block. When there are more needs in the neighborhoods an individual’s attachment with his or her home and block decrease Brown, Perkins, Brown, 2003. For this study, both needs and assets were captured. Needs were assessed in order to target specific improvements to the neighborhoods. Assets could potentially be matched to needs. Perception of Safety The final construct examined in this study was perception of safety. The literature on fear of crime suggests that there are many costs associated with fear of crime. These include health losses due to stress and anxiety, a change in behavior that incurs costs such as increasing the time it takes to leave the house, taking taxis instead of walking or taking public transportation, loss in value of home, loss of productivity, reducing social activity, and reducing physical activity Dolan Peasgood, 2006. Past research has found that perception of safety does have an impact on one’s health through influencing the likelihood of physical activity. Overall, an increase in perception of safety increases the likelihood of occasional exercise by 27 Shenassa, Liebhaber, Ezeamama, 2006. Fear of crime also influences feelings and behaviors not just toward the home but also toward the block or neighborhood. Brown, Perkins, and Brown 2003 found that fear of crime was significantly negatively associated with place attachment to the block or neighborhood. In terms of individual well-being, perception of safety has an affect on loneliness. When there is a low perception of safety in the neighborhood and a person has a need for a high level of safety, loneliness increases Gibbs, Puzzanchera, Hanrahan, Giever, 1998. Perception of safety is also important specifically to the Town of Cary. Safety is one of the Town’s Quality of Life Guiding Principles Town of Cary, n.d. a . CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY Setting The setting for this study was a section of the downtown area of Cary, NC. The survey was sent to residents within two census block groups, which were 535.01-1 and 535.07-1. One is on the west side of downtown 535.07-1, the other on the east 535.01-1. From here on 535.01-1 will be referred to as census block group A and 535.07-1 will be referred to as census block group B. Academy Street serves as a boundary between the two block groups and Chatham Street serves as an approximate northernmost boundary to both of the block groups. These neighborhoods were chosen because of their proximity to one another as well as their similar population sizes. They also encompass part of the inner Maynard Loop, which is the focus of Community Page 9 Development Block Grant funding as well as the Healthy Neighborhoods Initiative. The area encompassed in this survey is the historic part of Cary, deemed the heart of Cary Town of Cary, n.d. b . It is the location of the first homes in Cary, the first public high school in Wake County, the first subdivisions in Cary, and the first churches in Cary Byrd, 1994. Appendix B includes the maps of each of the neighborhoods surveyed. The overall area surveyed is fairly diverse. There is about an equal number of men and women and about an equal number of renters and owners. The racial makeup of the area is somewhat diverse, having about 28 minority group population U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. See appendix A for exact percentages of each variable along with a comparison to the whole Town of Cary. Block group A has a population of 623 and B has a population of 781 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Cary GIS found there is only one pharmacy, library and school located within the block groups. According to Cary GIS data, the two census block groups are fairly similar when it comes to amenities. There is one park within each. Heater Park is located in census block group B and Urban Park is located within A. Two banks are located within each. There are no large chain grocery stores within either and the C-Tran runs along the boundary of the block groups traveling down Chatham and Academy streets. However, there are a few differences in terms of amenities. Google Earth shows there is one church within B and 2 within A. The block groups also differ in terms of ratio of residential to commercial properties. For the total area examined the ratio of residential to commercial was 5.46. Within census block group A the ratio is 4.06 and within B it is 7.46. Wake County GIS data lists a few subdivisions located in each of the block groups. The subdivisions within A are Park Grove, Hunter Park, Hunter Creek, Adams Park, Callan Park, and Forest Park. Coronado Village and Rainbow Estates are not contained within the block group but sit on the edge of the boundary. The subdivisions within B are Krendle Woods, Montclair, Carr Hills, Russell Hills, and Pine Valley. The 2000 US Census reports that for A the median age is 32 and for B the median age is slightly higher, 37. For A the proportion of males to females is higher than for B. In A 52 are male and 48 are female. In B 47 are male and 53 are female. Also, more people rent in A 59.5 than in B 43.3. Census block group A is more of a diverse neighborhood than B. For those over the age of 18, there are more non-Caucasian groups within the neighborhood U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Within block group A 69 of households are low to moderate income households. Low to moderate is defined by earning less than 80 of the median income Town of Cary, 2004. Within block group B only 29 are low to moderate income households. According to Cary Police Department Town of Cary, n.d. d , within block group A, there were 45 total crimes between January and May 2007 as well as 17 calls for services. Within block group B there were 33 total crimes as well as 16 calls for service. A call for service occurs when a report is completed for information purposes only. It is important to note that Cary does not track crimes based on census boundaries. So these results may encompass a slightly larger area than a block group. Page 10 Participants The survey and cover letter were sent to all 633 households within the downtown area. The cover letter asked only residents 18 and older to complete the survey. The majority of participants were Female, Caucasian, and Homeowners. Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 1 through 4 show the results of each demographic variable for the total respondents and each census block group. Race For the population as a whole, the majority was Caucasian. The same is true for each of the census block groups. However, a higher percentage of minority residents responded from block group A than did from block group B. Responses to qualify the “other” option were Asian and Caucasian, Asian Indian, Caucasian and Native American or Alaskan, and WhiteHispanic mix. Table 1. Race Race Total percent A percent B percent Caucasian 89.4 82.7 94.0 African-American 4.9 8.6 2.4 American Indian 2.1 3.4 1.2 Asian or Pacific .7 1.7 Hispanic 0 Other 2.8 3.4 2.4 Gender There were a higher percentage of females responding to the survey for the group as a whole and for each of the census block groups. The ratio of male to female respondents was approximately equal for each census block group and the group as a whole. 37 63 36 64 37 63 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percentage Total A 535.01-1 B 535.07-1 Block Group Figure 1. Gender Male Female Page 11 Income Results show that a larger proportion of higher income individuals responded to the survey from block group B than in block group A. The median range for the entire group was 50,001- 70,000. The median range for block group A was 30,001-50,000 and for block group B was 70,001-100,000. This is indicative of pre-existing data on the income of the residents within each block group that states that B is higher income area than A. The US Census Bureau reports that in 1999 the median income for A was 28,833 and the median income for B was 50,167. Table 2. Income Income Total percent A percent B percent 0-20,000 8.0 10.0 6.7 20,001-30,000 12.0 18.0 8.0 30,001-50,000 18.4 30.0 10.7 50,001-70,000 25.6 28.0 24.0 70,001-100,000 18.4 10.0 24.0 100,001-120,000 11.2 2.0 17.3 120,001-140,000 3.2 0.0 5.3 140,001-160,000 0.8 0.0 1.3 Over 160,000 2.4 2.0 2.7 Education The majority of respondents had completed some college or more. This was evident in both block groups as well as the group as a whole. However, within block group B, more respondents had completed a higher degree. 7 34 37 22 8 41 36 15 6 30 38 26 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage Total A 535.01-1 B 535.07-1 Block Group Figure 2. Education Graduate degree: College degree: Some college: High school or less: Page 12 Homeownership Results show that more people own their homes in each block group. However, within A, almost twice as many rent as do in block group B. This could be due to the fact that block group A is a lower income area than B. 23 77 34 66 15 85 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percentage Total A 535.01-1 B 535.07-1 Block Group Figure 3. Homeownership Rent Own Living Situation Results were collapsed to compare those who live alone with those who live with someone else. Someone else could be the “live with relative” option or the “live with significant other or married” option. Results show that more people live alone than with someone else in block group A than in B or the group as a whole. In block group A 50 live alone and 46.4 live with someone else. In block group B 30.2 live alone and 68.6 live with someone else. Page 13 38 4 56 2 50 7 39 4 30 1 67 1 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage Total A 535.01-1 B 535.07-1 Block Group Figure 4. Living Situation other Live with sign other Live with relative Live alone In terms of living with children, for the group as a whole 29 said they have children living in the house. This was 30 for block group A and 28 for block group B. So whether people have children living in their home is fairly similar across the two block groups. For the entire survey area the range of number of children living in the household was 1 to 4 with a mean of 1.55. The most frequent response was 1 child. Age Age had a wide range in the present study. Respondents ranged from 24 to 85 with a mean of 50 years old. The mean age for A was approximately 47 and the mean age for B was approximately 52, which was a significant difference. Tenure in Neighborhood There was a very large range in terms of how long residents have lived in their neighborhood. It was .08 to 57 years, with a mean of 15.22. The average number of years in the neighborhood for A was 12.2 and for B was 17.2, which was a nonsignificant difference. In terms of how long residents think that their neighbors have lived in the neighborhood, the mean number of years within the neighborhood for the whole group was 16.6 with a range of 1 to 80. The average number of years the residents thought their neighbors had lived in the neighborhood for A was 13.3 and for B was 18.9, which was a nonsignificant difference. Tenure in Cary There was a very large range in terms of how long residents have lived in Cary. It was .08 to 83 years, with a mean of 20.9. The average number of years in Cary for A was 18.7 and for B was 22.4, which was a nonsignificant difference. In terms of how long residents think their neighbors have lived in Cary, the mean number of years within Cary for the whole group was 20.3 with a range of 1 to 100. The average number of years the residents thought their neighbors had lived in Cary for A was 15.5 and for B was 23.7, which was a significant difference. Page 14 Comparison of Respondents to Population The table below illustrates the comparison of the participants to the population. Education, Income, Tenure, and Living situation cannot be compared to census data since the census data is either not available for these variables or is not in a compatible format. Table 3. Representativeness of Participants to Population Variables 1 Response Options Present 535.01-1 Present 535.07-1 2000 US Census 535.01-1 2000 US Census 535.07-1 Race Caucasian African-American American Indian Asian or Pacific Hispanic Other 82.7 8.6 3.4 1.7 3.4 94.0 2.4 1.2 2.4 68.5 13.8 1.0 16.1 0.6 83.5 8.6 .3 1.7 4.6 1.3 Gender Male Female 36.2 63.8 36.9 63.1 51.8 48.2 45.5 54.5 Homeownership Rent Own 33.9 66.1 15.1 84.9 59.5 40.5 43.3 56.7 Children present Yes No 30.0 70.0 28.2 71.8 25.7 74.3 25.8 74.2 For age the respondents are not entirely representative of the population. They are slightly older than the population. The median age found for A is 45 and for B is 51. However, the US Census reports that the median age for A is 32 and for B is 37 for the total population. The median age ranges for A and B for only those over the age of 18 were 35-39 and 40-44, respectively, which is slightly closer to the medians found in the present study. So for race, gender, homeownership, and age the respondents are not representative of the population. This could be due to survey methodology. It was a mail-based survey, there was no Spanish version and it was not random within households. The disparities between the gender variable seems plausible since typically females respond more than males Caldwell, Jackson, Tucker, Bowman, 1999. Response Rate Since this was a mail survey, response rate was a concern. However, results show a relatively good response rate. Out of the 633 surveys sent to residents, a total of 157 were returned yielding a response rate of 24.8. However, 3 respondents were removed, two because they were businesses and one because it was missing the indicator of which block group the survey was coming from. The final N was 154. The survey was sent to 306 households within A and 64 were returned, yielding a response rate of 20.9. It was sent to 327 households within B and 92 were returned, yielding a response rate of 28.1. However, 2 of the respondents were businesses and were subsequently deleted, yielding a final response rate of 27.5 for block group B. 1 For Census data race was by population 18 and over, gender was by population 18 and over, homeownership was by household, children present was by household. Page 15 Online versus Mail Surveys In order to increase response rate, the survey was available online through a webpage sponsored by North Carolina State University. Online surveys, as opposed to more traditional methods, allow the researcher to reach a wider variety of participants thereby increasing response rate. It is also more cost effective and considerably less time consuming. However, there have been concerns with the representativeness of the participants of online surveys compared to that of traditional methods. Past research has found that representativeness of the sample to the population should not be a concern and with some demographic characteristics, the sample obtained through web-based forms are more representative of the population than samples obtained through more traditional methods Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, John, 2004. So, there were no concerns with representativeness of the population completing it online. However, after data was collected the major concern was response rate of people completing it online. After deleting the items mentioned above, only 7 completed it online and 147 completed it by mail. The Town of Cary Guide to Citizen Services Town of Cary, 2007 c states that 94 of the Cary population has internet access either at home or at work. However, very few completed the survey online. The block groups examined may encompass the 6 that do not have internet access or they may choose not to use it as a feedback mechanism. Confidence Interval The total number of respondents was 154 resulting in a margin of error of +- 6.9. Census block group A had 64 respondents which yielded a margin of error of +-10.9 and census block group B had a response of 90 yielding a margin or error of +-8.8. Measures The following variables were measured in this survey: neighborhood definition, sense of community, neighboring, citizen participation, needs, assets, perception of safety, and demographics. Reliabilities were computed for most of the variables. Reliability is an indicator of the consistency with which the constructs are measured. Estimates of reliability fall between 0 and 1 with estimates closest to one indicating that the construct was measured with the least amount of error. All reliabilities were at least moderate except for citizen participation and needs. The full survey is represented in Appendix C. Neighborhood Definition Since the survey needed to stay anonymous in order that an informed consent form not be required, addresses could not be collected. To determine how people conceptualize their neighborhood, they were asked to indicate which four streets serve as boundaries to their neighborhood. Other items included whether the neighborhood has a name with response options of 0=don’t know, 1=no, and 2=yes. If they answered “yes” to this question, they were asked for the name of the neighborhood. Items were developed by the researcher with assistance from Town of Cary Planning Staff. Sense of Community For the purposes of this study, the sense of community subscale of the Perceived Neighborhood Scale was used to measure sense of community. Past research has found that the Perceived Neighborhood Scale is made up of four distinct and separate subscales: social embeddedness, sense of community, satisfaction with neighborhood, and perceived crime. The scale was Page 16 originally developed to assess neighborhood characteristics and their relationship to parenting Martinez, Black, Starr, 2002. All items on the sense of community subscale were left in tact. Residents were asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with the following items with response options ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. • There are people I can rely on among my neighbors. • People trust each other in my neighborhood. of my actions e.g., how I dress, how I treat my • e to some of my neighbors. ast research has found a moderate reliability for the sense of community scale, α=.85-.86 s eighboring • I feel I belong in my neighborhood. • I care about what my neighbors think child. I feel clos • People in my neighborhood are usually warm and friendly. • We help each other out in my neighborhood. P Martinez, Black, Starr, 2002. The present study found that the reliability for sense of community was high, α=.912. However one item had a low item to total correlation and if deleted would increase the reliability to .928. This item was “I care about what my neighbor think of my actions.” All of the other items had a moderate item to total correlation and would decrease the reliability if the item were deleted. N ehavior was measured using a modified version of Prezza, Amici, Roberti, and the er eighboring was measured with 2 sets of items. The first set consisted of 5 items asking tions omes t together he othe many neighbors they: lem asking to borrow little things Neighboring b Tedeschi’s 2001 Neighborhood Relations Scale. This scale was developed to study the relationships between sense of community, neighboring, and quality of life. All items from Neighborhood Relations Scale were left in tact. However, two items were added to the scale. One measured how many neighbors participants would recognize if they saw them and the oth measures how many neighbors participants know by name. N participants to rate how often they participate in the following behaviors with response op ranging from 1=never to 5=everyday: • Visit with neighbors in their h • Have neighbors over to house to visi • Stop and talk with people in the neighborhood • Meet with neighbors to spend some time doing things • Exchange favors with neighbors T r set of items asked participants to fill in how • Would recognize if they saw them • Know by name nds • Consider as frie • Would have no prob Page 17 The original Neighborhood Relations Scale reportedly has a high reliability, α =.89 Prezza et al. ir itizen Participation 2001. The reliability for the final entire neighboring scale used in this study was moderate, α=.837. However, the item that asks residents how often they stop and talk with people in the neighborhood had a low item to total correlation; however, if deleted would increase the reliability of the total scale only slightly. C as measured with a variety of items developed by the researcher. First s y f esidents were then asked in which type of community they participate in community problem so what ed eeds and Assets Citizen participation w participants were asked to rate how often they do the following: informally talk with neighbor about a community problem, participate in neighborhood related activities e.g. neighborhood dinners, festivals, etc., and personally participate in community problem solving when a problem arises. Response options ranged from 1=never to 5=everyday. Reliability was onl computed for these first three items. It was found to be quite low, α =.779. However, if any o the items were deleted the reliability of the scale would decrease. R solving. Response options were “within the block”, “within the neighborhood”, “within the town”, and “none”. The survey then asked about homeowner’s associations. Participants indicated whether there was a homeowner’s association within their neighborhood and if the name of the association is. Finally, participants were asked to indicate with what groups they were involved. Options were “neighborhood groupsassociations”, “town-wide community groups”, “informal neighborhood groups”, “homeowner’s associations”, and “none”. If they weren’t involved with any of the groups, they were asked to indicate why. If they were involv with any of the groups, they were asked for the names of the groups. N items were drawn from McGuire’s 1997 Neighborhood Characteristics tems g is ent study tly articipants were asked to indicate what problems they see with their neighborhood. The LitterTrash • Drug addicts s Public Drinking Some of the needs Questionnaire and Observation Scale. The Neighborhood Characteristics Questionnaire was originally developed to assess crime and delinquency and was then modified for a program evaluation and tailored toward use with families with small children. McGuire, 1997 The i drawn from the Questionnaire were littertrash, graffiti, drug addicts, alcoholics and public drinking, vacantabandoned store fronts, burned down buildings, unemployed people hangin out, and traffic. The rest of the items were developed by the researcher with the assistance of Town of Cary Planning staff. The reliability for the needs scale was low, α =.715. However, it fairly similar to that found in a study using the original Neighborhood Characteristics Questionnaire, which was .77. McGuire, 1997. The reliability index found in the pres would be increased slightly if the following items were deleted: traffic, inadequate parking, and other. All asset items were developed by the researcher with the assistance of Town of Cary Planning staff and had a moderate reliability α=.823. The reliability would be increased sligh if the “other” option was deleted. P following needs were listed as options: • • Graffiti • Alcoholic Page 18 • VacantAbandoned s tore fronts es ks r repa r s were asked to indicate what the assets a in ly ational facilities ources e.g. library, ources s Perception of Safety • Lack of common spaces • Burned down buildings • Unemployed people hanging out • Lack of sidewalks • Traffic • Inadequate parking ir • Street pavement in poo • Noise • Housesyards not well kept • Other • Lack of recreation faciliti • Inadequate sidewal • Curb and gutter in poor repair a ticipant P re their neighborhood. The following assets were listed as options: • Large lot sizes • Locally owned businesses • Friendly people Pedestrian frien • d • Child-friendly • Attractive landscape • Available recre • Close proximity to res grocery store, laundromat, bank, etc. • Religious organizationsres Cultural organizationsreso • urces • Close proximity to restaurants • Citizenneighborhood association • Historic buildings • Attractive homes • Other ne of the safety questions was taken from McGuire’s 1997 Neighborhood Characteristics servation Scale, specifically; neighborhood has become worse and more , participants were asked to indicate their level of greement with the following four statements with response options ranging from 1=strongly o out after dark in this neighborhood. ns. in. The rel .898 if the overall fety item were deleted. Participants were then asked to rate how safe they feel within their O Questionnaire and Ob dangerous than other parts of the town. Other items were developed by the research in cooperation with Town of Cary staff. Safety was measured in two parts. First a disagree to 5=strongly agree: • This neighborhood is more dangerous than other parts of the town. • People are afraid to g • FriendsRelatives don’t visit this neighborhood because of safety concer • This neighborhood has become more dangerous since I moved iability of the scale was moderate, α=.861. It would increase slightly sa neighborhood on a 9-point scale. The item was taken from the Town of Cary Biennial Citizen Survey Town of Cary, 2006 b . Demographics The demographic items assessed race, income, education, gender, age, homeownership, tenure in d and in Cary, and living situation. They were developed by the researcher and the neighborhoo the Town of Cary Planning staff. The items measuring education, race, and income were taken from the Town of Cary Biennial Citizen Survey with slight modifications Town of Cary, 2006 b . Page 19 Open-Ended Five open-ended questions were added in order to determine whether there were any program development possibilities. Each item was developed by the researcher. The open ended items ere: u could change ONE thing about your neighborhood, what would it be? neighborhood? hbors? Proced The sur State U State niversity iew Board. ent. That way, when returned, each survey could be o block groups. ilable online for those participants that prefer using the internet 3. dy two 5. Nei ve w • If yo • What is the ONE best aspect of your neighborhood? • What is ONE thing that could increase your sense of community with your • What is ONE thing that could increase your level of interaction with your neig ut issuesevents in your • Where do you obtain the majority of information abo neighborhood? ure arolina vey was designed, implemented, and analyzed by a graduate student at North C niversity. All instruments and procedures were approved by the North Carolina Institutional Rev U The procedure was as follows: 1. All surveys were labeled with either an A or a B that corresponded to the census block group to which they were being s matched to one of the tw 2. The survey was also ava to completing a paper-based form. This was also done in order to increase the response rate. The survey along with a cover letter explaining the study was mailed to all 633 households within the two block groups. 4. Three weeks after the initial mailing was sent, a follow-up mailing was distributed. This mailing included another copy of the survey along with a follow-up cover letter. Since this was an anonymous survey there was no way of tracking those who had alrea responded to the survey. So, the follow-up was sent to all households within the census block groups. Multiple contacts were used since past research has shown that increasing the number of contacts the researcher has with the participants will increase the response rate Dillman, 2000. Three weeks after the follow-up was sent, the survey was closed.

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS ghborhood Definition